HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-14 • DRAFT
•
Town of Lansing
Monday, August 14, 2006 7 : 15 PM PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
(*Denotes present)**
* Nancy Loncto, Chairperson * Tom Ellis
* Larry Sharpsteen * Lin Davidson
* Viola Miller * David Hatfield
* Brian Ivery
* Matthew Besemer, Town Board Liaison
Richard Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer II
* David Herrick, P .E . Town of Lansing Engineer
Darby Kiley, TOL Environmental Planner
Public Present
• Connie Wilcox
Doris Lobdell
Richard Lobdell
Gary Wood, P . E .
Ray Reynolds
John O ' Connor
Tom Besemer
Greg Lawrence
Larry Zuidema
Doug Boles
General Business
Nancy Loncto called the Planning Board Meeting to order at 7 : 15 PM . Ms . Loncto requested if there
were any concerns/suggestion from the Public Present. There were none.
Besemer/Drake Road Subdivision, Tompkins County Health Dept. Comments
David Herrick, P . E . for the Town of Lansing explained that he and Timothy Buhl, P . E . for the
Besemers are working on what he classifies as "technical details" with regards to the Stormwater
Management. The principle concept is that there will be a practice located at the bottom end of the
project that will take care of some of the on-site requirements for channel protection, and water
quality treatment, while other facilities on the quarry will Make care of the larger ( 10 & 100 Yr) flood •
impacts. Due to the lack of time, Mr. Herrick has been unable to visit or review the details of The
Cayuga Crush Stone property. One major issue not identified in Mr. Herrick ' s comments is the long
• term responsibility for the ponds down below. The Town should clarify as to how they will be
• maintained for perpetuity of this subdivision since they will be relied upon for the Stormwater
obligation.
Mr. Herrick offered the following comments in regards to The Tompkins Health Department letter
dated August 2 ,. 2006, also Timothy Buhl ' s revised drawings dated July 21 , 2006 . (Green
highlighted areas indicate items previously identified and remain outstanding)
Drake Road Subdivision — Sketch Plan
1 . Stormwater Management: Previous review comments that have not been addressed are highlighted.
a . Grading
1 ) The site grading suggests the swale that captures runoff from lots 8 and 9 does not ultimately reach the
pond.
b . Hydrology/ Hydraulics
1 ) Plans reference Hydrocad Modeling Results, but none were provided. The Preliminary Stormwater
Management Report dated March 29 contains the only hydrologic modeling results provided to date,
and these results do not include the proposed on-site pond. The plans do provide some information, but
are missing the following :
• Peak discharges and flow volumes from each catchment.
• Stage-Storage curve for the proposed pond.
• Hydrographs.
• Actual model input values to spot-check assumptions.
• Schematic to determine routing
2) An original comment from May 8 , 2006 suggested the following :
-While providing flood eontrol mitigation in p larg - downstream faeil ty such as rhes- pono
IA s h1 good sto m water m ianagemen strat - gq9 addi onal information is neeess'ary to dete '-mite if dila ,
• tra egy e-a ib1 = -a d. At n oo ea data TM be needed to deternuan - both jpn'. and post=
de eloped runoffurt. and leaving ft pends, ft flow oath throu..h tq - oo noS} data 00 ft
�o esi c•n .oft ° end embankment and pH a
3) To date, no additional information regarding the design or hydrology of these ponds has been provided.
Any future submission should detail the following :
• Inflow rates, including all drainage to the quarry ponds.
• Stage-storage relationship.
• Elevations within the pond during storm events.
• Routing through the ponds; if the ponds truly have no outlet, demonstrate that inflows
evaporate or infiltrate between storm events.
4 ) Runoff calculations are to "Design Point 1 " which is in the downstream quarry. Although hydrologic
assumptions are available for on-site catchments, no data has ever been provided regarding the area
intervening between the site and the pond, or the quarry ponds themselves, which are represented as
"Design Point 1 "
5 ) Although the swale that captures runoff from lots 8 and 9 does not convey runoff to the pond, the
catchment delineations on plan ST-7 suggest that this runoff does reach the pond.
c . Erosion and Sediment Control
; . ._.
�'
j) leas e0revid- on detail on construction o g
r1ffft ho ses Ica, be d -- v - loped se o a atel 1 u need 6 •and-aloneco and e stand-alon<
anion and sediment control plan
• removed ,/ 2_ , o '' 0, and 'so sect:146
3 � (� stormwater o and b - used charily constructionas a - i ao e o,
• d . Permanent Stormwater Management
( g o nd =•rading o la ' kcs ey d - gaited ' but ' o ' , - tissues remain I -ardin_ °end ti•eom - t , " yellow °
p S 1Uobmbbl L - gt'h o Wid ' o f° ab°o off gig fCO-igicOMI
long low pdi a ((de i1 _ uidanet, AS' could b - min - vel ird berms b11uDB to Qk
hag. 000L
-rrooiular Cr ods D - utdan.R
°
® d 8 uffe s 0 urged;
2 ) If the downstream quarry ponds will be used for stormwater quantity control, some mechanism needs to
be in place to ensure the long-term condition of the ponds even if the property is sold.
e . SWPPP Format
1 ) The May 29 , 2006 SWPPP must be updated once the final practice designs are found complete.
2) Some referenced documents are currently out of date including :
o o ' , 'de• Ines or Erosionand edimen ontrel s ii [® a , °llod`l0 ( - been
r SEW,
to 4000 0 doeumen . ovoidal - on DIE n web
iu "Red cion•f tittg m 0 ao�s ° off (footmen k3al• o out o(l dot>,
Mr. Buhl indicated that there would be a long term easement on The Cayuga Crush Stone property.
Mr. Buhl responded to the Health Department ' s comment by stating that when the perk tests were
performed, it was extremely wet. Mr. Buhl did return to the site and re perked 3 of the 4 lots, they
all met the criteria which meant that the proposed layout would work. The Health Department will
need to be present at the site to repeat the exercise.
• Nancy Loncto requested that the Health Department letter be made a part of the minutes . In addition,
she requested that the Planning Board Members be provided with a copy of them for their records .
• Environmental Health Division 40] Harris B. Dates Drive, Ithaca, NY ]4850 (607) 274-6638; Fax (607) 274-6695
2 August 2006
Matt Besemer
C/o Cayuga Crushed Stone PO I}0i 41
Lansing, NY 14882
Re: Proposed Drake Road Subdivision, Lansing-T (Tax Parcel 7-35. -3- 13 . 12)
Dear Mr. Besemer:
On July 25 and 26, 2006 we conducted preliminary field investigations on the above property in the Town of Lansing to determine the suitability of the
land for development as a realty subdivision. The land is located on the west side of Drake Road about 700' south of NYS route 34B. You are proposing
19 lots with on-lot sewage systems and municipal water.
The development must comply with Articles VI and VIII of the Tompkins County Sanitary Code, and applicable parts of the New York State Sanitary
Code with respect to the water supply, sewage treatment and other aspects of realty subdivision development.
A realty subdivision is created when 5 or more lots (each 5 acres or less) are sold, leased, or offered for sale or lease, within a three year period. However,
an unlimited number of lots over five acres in size could be developed without County or State subdivision approval.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Since no municipal system is presently available, individual sewage systems ate proposed to serve each lot. The soils on the site will be used to treat and
• dispose of the sanitary wastes created. In order for standard or raised systems to be used, there must be at least two feet of permeable soil (percolation test
results between 1 and 60 minutes per inch) between the bottom of any trench and any restriction (rock, slowly permeable soil, or groundwater).
. Standard absorption field systems are suitable where there is at least four feet of permeable soil above any restriction, and shallow raised systems are
suitable where there is at least 2, and up to 4, feet.
•
Raised systems are absorption systems constructed in suitable till material placed on the ground surface; these are acceptable where there is at least one
foot of permeable natural soil above any restriction.
Sand -filters followed w modified downstream trenches may be considered equivalent 19 a raised system and may be used in the same soil conditions.
. Where there is between six inches and one foot of permeable soil (that percolates up to 120 minutes per inch) above any restriction, a sand filter
followed by a mound system may be considered but the lots must be at least 2 acres in area in which a circle of 250 feet diameter tits. However, no on-site
sewage systems are suitable where there is less than six inches of this (slower) permeable soil above groundwater or rock.
The minimum lot size where on-lot sewage systems are proposed and municipal water is available is one-half acre of usable area in which a circle of I00'
diameter can fit. However, where soils are poor, sewage systems and houses large, this size may be inadequate. The proposed lots are at least as large as 1
acre. The Town of Lansing may have other lot or frontage requirements.
The Tompkins County Soil Survey identifies and describes four soil types in the development area:
HuB - Hudson-Cayuga silt foams, 2-6% slope, may have I foot of moderately permeable soil over slowly permeable soils; high water table 10-30 inches,
well or moderately well drained.
HsB - Hudson silty clay loam, 2-6% slope, l to 2 feet of silt loam or silty clay loam over slowly permeable soil; high water table 10-24 inches; well or
moderately well drained. RkB - Rhinebeck silt loam, 2-6% slope, 1 foot of moderately to slowly permeable heavy silt loam over slowly permeable soils;
high water table 0- 15 "; somewhat poorly drained. OaA - Ovid silt loam, 0 - 6% slope, I to 1 .25' of moderately permeable soil over slower soils, high
water table 4- 15". May be poorly drained.
As described, the shallow permeable soils, the slowly permeable soils, and the shallow ground water make this site poorly suited for on-site sewage
systems. Some areas of the HuB may be acceptable for raised systems or sand filters. The other soil types, due to slowly permeable soils and the shallow
groundwater at 0- 15 " below grade are severe restrictions. We already provided detailed descriptions of each soil type in the Soils Survey.
Twelve deep holes, 2 .5' to 5' deep, and 12 percolation holes, 11 " to 13 " deep, were observed across the site; see the soil test summary. The deep holes and
percolation tests confirmed severe restrictions for the installation of sewage systems due to shallow permeable soils or shallow seasonally high ground
water. No areas are acceptable for standard systems or shallow absorption fields. Only a few areas, where there may be 12" of soil that perks faster than
60 minutes per inch may be acceptable for sand filter type system (followed by a modified absorption field). or a raised system. This may include the areas
around deep holes 4, 7 and SA, but only if percolation tests conch-in that [ 2 " of permeable soil exists.
• Only 2 of the 12 perk holes had rates faster than 60 minutes per inch, and one of these was limited to the upper 7" of soil. Part 74.4 of IONYCRR
prohibits the development of a realty subdivision with individual sewage systems where the soil percolation rate is slower than 60 minutes per inch.
However; -the Tompkins County Sanitary Code; Article VII, does provide for a realty subdivision development where at least 6" of soil percolates up to
120 minutes per inch. The lots must be at least 2 acres in size in which a circle o1250' diameter fits. This soil condition is acceptable only for a mound
system or a sand filter followed by a mound.
Unfortunately, the areas around Deep Holes 5 and I I are not suitable even for the mound type system due to water on the ground surface ( DI-15) and
percolation times slower than 120 minutes per inch ( DH I I ).
It is obvious that much more detailed soil investigations will be required if you decide to pursue this development with on-site sewage systems. If your
engineer is able to find areas with soil percolation rates faster than 60 minutes per inch, the Health Department will need to observe a representative
sample of them.
Percolation tests in the exact areas proposed for any sewage system will need to be done at the proper depth, and shown on the final plan. Any areas with
only 6- 12" of acceptable soil will need an increased lot size of two acres in which a 250' diameter circle fits.
As in any subdivision, the location and details of each sewage system, including an equal replacement area, must be designed by the consultant and shown
on the plans prior to approval. Other features, such as underground utilities, driveways, foundation drain lines, drainage swales, etc. , must be shown. If
contours outside the roads are to be modified, how the area of the sewage systems will be protected must be explained in the engineer's report and clearly
shown on the plans.
Since any sewage system will depend upon the upper 12" of soil in order to function, the engineer must describe how the permeability of the surface soils
will be protected. Heavy equipment must be kept off the areas designated for sewage systems or the soil will be compacted.
Any part of a sewage system must be at least 100' horizontally from a watercourse, which is defined as "a visible path through which surface water navels
on a regular basis. Drainage areas which contain water only dining and immediately after a rainstorm shall not be considered a watercourse. " Obviously
the stream to the north of the property ( P296-59, Class D) is a watercourse. We observed water flowing in the drainage way that crosses the southeastern
coiner ofthe property, and in places it is eroded to bedrock. Because of the recent heavy rains, we have not yet determined this unidentified drainage to be
a watercourse. But we will observe it in more detail in the next few weeks, and if water is flowing then the 100' separation to sewage systems will need to
be maintained.
• WATER SYSTEM
The municipal water system will be extended to serve the new lots. An application and plans will be required.
• STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW (SEOR) ACT
Under the SEQR procedures, this is a Type I Action (more than 12 lots in an Agricultural district) requiting a lead agency for coordinated review. We
recommend that the Town of Lansing volunteer to be lead agency. A long EAF will be required for review. Review will not start until a completed
application and EAF is received by an involved agency.
FEES AND FORMS
The current plan review fee for a subdivision is $500 plus $80 for each lot, and the water extension plan review fee is S 150 plus $ 10 for each 1000' of
pipe. At the time of construction on each lot, an individual sewage system construction permit (S3I5 ) will be required. Forms required are the subdivision
application, long EAF, water main application, and Notice of intent for a storm water control permit.
Final plans must be sealed by your professional engineer responsible for the design, and show all necessary details for the water and sewage systems; road
layout; storm water control; erosion protection, and other important features for approval by this department. Pre- and post- development contours at the
two feet level should be shown.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
John Andersson, P. E.
Director, Environmental Health Services
It was the consensus of the Planning Board that a Public Hearing date be set for, Monday, September
11 , 2006 at 7 : 30 PM with the understanding that this may be cancelled at the developers expense if
the Health Department approval does not arrive before or on the date of the hearing.
Nancy Loncto summarized The Planning Board ' s expectation of the details for the next meeting.
1 . A general map (area defined) of the land that will be used for the Stormwater
Management purpose. A Legal Easement will need to be completed prior to Final
Approval , but not necessary for the next upcoming meeting.
2 . "Technical Details" worked out with David Herrick
• 3 . Tompkins County Health Department Approval .
Cayuga Way Subdivision, Preliminary Plat Grandview Drive/Tiger Lily Lane, Parcel #
(s) 40.-3-28.2 & 28. 1
David Herrick, P . E. for the Town of Lansing explained that there are "technical details" that he will
work out with Timothy Buhl, P . E . for the developer. The Stormwater Management Plan has several
issues that they are working on. Mr. Herrick stated for the Planning Board ' s benefit, that if there are
alterations in the neighboring Subdivision which has already been approved on a preliminary nature,
there may be some subsequent approvals that have to be sought by the neighboring project. Mr.
Herrick offered the following comments.
Cayuga Way Subdivision — Preliminary Plat
1 . Highway and Water System:
a . We have coordinated the connections to the Town' s booster station constructed in Pheasant Meadow and
future connections to a higher pressure tank grid. We will provide the Engineer with additional details of the
actual connection locations for use in developing their construction documents.
b . A copy of a sealed boundary and topographic survey must still be submitted.
c . The alterations within the Lakeview Subdivision may require additional Planning Board action on previous
approvals granted that project.
2 . Stormwater Management: In general, many of the original review comments have not been addressed.
a . Grading/ Site Layout
1 ) Two culverts are displayed differently on Plan ST- 1 than on Plan ST-5 , as follows.
o The culvert that passes under "New Road B" has different inverts presented in each plan.
• While the inverts on the erosion control plan ( 1116 .5 and 1106 .5 ; ST-5) appear to match the
• grading plan and road profile more closely, neither is completely correct. The actual inverts
are about 1114 . 5 and 1104 . 5 based on site grading.
a For the culvert that crosses "Road A," the written inverts are the same on each plan, but the
orientation of the culvert is different.
The downstream location is the same on both plans, and appears to be at about elevation
1060, but die reported invert is 1066 .2 .
The upstream location is different on each plan; the reported upstream invert is 1068 . 8 ,
which appears nearly correct based on the location of Plan ST- l . The upstream invert on
Plan ST-5 is approximately 1161 . 5 .
On the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ST-5) the swale that conveys runoff from the
northern edge of the site to the basin appears to run either completely flat or at a slightly
negative slope. This swale also flows through the front yard of Lot 10 , within about ten
feet of the edge of the house.
2 ) The swale on the west side of "Road A" does not convey flow to the roadside ditch along this road, but
appears to flow directly into the edge of the road.
b . Details
1 ) The outlet structure for the retention basin appears on plans ST- 1 and ST-5 to include some sort of
junction at about elevation 1043 , followed by another pipe connection to a level spreader. The detail on
ST- 11 shows a control structure in the embankment, leading to a traditional stone apron outlet.
c. Hydrology/ Hydraulics
1 ) The pre-developed watershed areas are bound by the site, rather than the actual watershed boundaries.
In fact, much of the site does not drain to design point DP-2 , and flows directly to the north.
2 ) A large volume of water is disappearing within the ponds (0.9 acre-feet for the 1 -year and 1 . 3 acre-feet
for the 10- and 100-year) . It is not clear how this is happening, but the volume of flow should be the
same entering and leaving these practices.
• d . Erosion and Sediment Control
1 ) This may just be a hatching issue, but the "dry riprap" called for on the ESC plan does not appear.
2 ) The text calls for 75% stabilization, but the DEC requires 80%.
3) The construction sequence is not of sufficient detail. It is unclear when the road will be constructed
relative to individual lots.
4) Will the stormwater pond be used during construction as a sediment trap, and if so when will sediment
be removed'?
e . Permanent Stormwater Management
1 ) The pond does not conform to the geometry guidelines and requirements set forth in the "New York
State Stormwater Management Design Manual" as follows :
- Minimum Length to Width Ratio of 1 . 5 : 1 (Required)
- Long Flow path (design guidance)
- Irregular Geometry (Design Guidance)
- Pond Buffer (Required)
2 ) The dry swale proposed does not meet state standards due to the shallow depth of material above the
underdrain. This practice only treats a few lots, and a traditional grassed channel" may provide
sufficient treatment. Regardless of which option is used, a "60-day" DEC review period will be
required.
3) A more detailed long-term maintenance is required for both the pond and dry swales.
f. General Format
1 ) Some referenced documents are currently out of date including:
• The 1997 "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control" and TOG 5 . 1 . 10 have been replaced
with a 2006 document available on DEC ' s web site.
• • The "Reducing the Impacts . . . " document is also out of date.
•
• Timothy Buhl indicated that the owners are still working with the Barden Group with respect to
possibly purchasing their rights to finish the last Phase of The Lakeview Subdivision. The Code
Enforcement Office received the following from the Barden Group with respect to the layout.
June 8, 2006
Mr. Richard Platt
Town of Lansing Code Enforcement Officer
29 Auburn Road
Lansing, New York 14882
Re: O'Connor — Cayuga Way Subdivision Dear Mr. Platt:
This letter is to confirm that we have reviewed the subdivision plans for the above project, and agreed to this with one small change to the new
proposed layout done by Timothy C. Buhl, P. E. dated 5/29/06. We wish to re-locate the spur for the future road in the Northeast corner to follow the
property line thus increasing the square footage of lot #32 .
When the time comes for us to finalize the last phase of our Lakeview Subdivision (located just west of the Cayuga Way project), we will tie into their
proposed roadway at our joint property line with our new road, making the new roadway a thru street. We will handle any minor lot boundary revisions
required in this corner and submit them to the clerk's office well in advance of any construction start.
If you have any questions regarding the intent of this letter o need any additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
•
Douglas Wilcox
Assistant Secretary
Barden & Robeson Corporation
Nancy Loncto advised Mr. Buhl that he must address David Herrick' s comment.
Thomas Ellis made a motion to accept this as a Preliminary Plat. Larry Sharpsteen seconded .
VOTE AS FOLLOWS :
Lin Davidson — Aye
Thomas Ellis — Aye
David Hatfield — Aye
Brian Ivery — Aye
Nancy Loncto — Aye
Viola Miller —Abstained
Larry Sharpsteen — Aye
MOTION CARRIED .
Lin Davidson made a motion to set a SEQR Public Hearing date for Monday, September 11 , 2006 at
8 : 00 PM . Brian Ivery seconded .
VOTE AS FOLLOWS : Lin Davidson — Aye
. Thomas Ellis — Aye
David Hatfield — Aye
Brian Ivery — Aye
• Nancy Loncto — Aye
Viola Miller — Aye
Larry Sharpsteen — Aye
William Duthie, Site Plan Review-Addition To Cascadilla Space, 8 Town Barn Road,
Tax Parcel # 30.4-163
Doug Boles agent for Mr. Duthie appeared before the Planning Board . Richard Platt explained to the members
that Mr. Duthie would like to add a Pole Barn addition to one of the existing buildings for storage. Larry
Sharpsteen commented that this is an extension of an existing use in an Industrial Research Area. The Site is set
well back from the road, and the required set backs will be met. There is plenty of screening. Lighting will be 1
"shoe Box" style over the main door.
Larry Sharpsteen made a motion that the Site Plan be accepted with the conditions that any run off from the new
roof be handled on site rather than channeled off site. Lin Davidson seconded.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS :
Lin Davidson — Aye
Thomas Ellis — Aye
David Hatfield — Aye
Brian Ivery — Aye
Nancy Loncto — Aye
Viola Miller — Aye
Larry Sharpsteen — Aye
MOTION CARRIED .
•
Richard Lobdell, Final Approval - Stormwater Plan Major Subdivision, Farrell Road,
Parcel # 39:1- 19.3
Gary Wood, P.E. for the Developer provided a Stormwater Plan B as previously requested by the Board. David
Herrick, P.E. for the Town indicated he is satisfied with the Plan B document that has been provided.
Lin Davidson completed the SEQR. Lin Davidson made a motion to declare a negative declaration. Larry
Sharpsteen seconded.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS :
Lin Davidson — Aye
Thomas Ellis — Aye
David Hatfield — Aye
Brian Ivery — Aye
Nancy Loncto — Aye
Viola Miller — Aye
Larry Sharpsteen — Aye
MOTION CARRIED.
Larry Sharpsteen made a motion to accept this as a Final Plat. David Hatfield seconded.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS :
Lin Davidson — Aye
Thomas Ellis — Aye
• David Hatfield — Aye
Brian Ivery — Aye
Nancy Loncto — Aye
• Viola Miller — Aye
Larry Sharpsteen — Aye
MOTION CARRIED.
Randy Swearingen — Informal Discussion, Archery Club, Waterwagon Road
Mr. Swearingen did not appear before the Board . No discussion was held.
Discuss Complaint regarding Roadside Stand Brickyard and Ridge Road
Mr. Ray Reynolds appeared before the Board requesting that the Planning Board enforce a vender that has set
up stand at the corner of Brickyard and Ridge Road for many years now. Mr. Reynolds feels this person is not a
local resident, does not sell his own homegrown produce and does not have permission from the State to set up
shop there. Mr. Reynolds feels this person is taking business away from him.
After a lengthy discussion, it was determined that it is not the purview of the Planning Board due to the person
not owning the land. This is a State issue.
Gregory Lawrence advised Mr. Reynolds that he could possibly have a civil action against this person. Mr.
Lawrence indicated that if this gentleman is conducting business on the corner he must be collecting sales tax,
and if he is not, then he is in violation.
Approval/Denial of July 24, 2006 Minutes
Thomas Ellis made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Larry Sharpsteen seconded.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS :
• Lin Davidson — Aye
Thomas Ellis — Aye
David Hatfield — Aye
Brian Ivery — Aye
Nancy Loncto — Aye
Viola Miller — Aye
Larry Sharpsteen — Aye
MOTION CARRIED .
Other Business/Concerns
• Nancy Loncto brought to the Member' s attention that Attendance is extremely important
especially now with all the activity going on in the Town. Mrs . Loncto encouraged all
Members to be in attendance.
• Nancy Loncto feels that it is important that all Members be provided with a Checklist for any
piece of property that comes before the Planning Board . Mrs. Loncto would like the Board
to consider hiring an Intern to go over the Checklist as well as Mr. Krogh ' s comments that he
provided in relations to it.
• In addition, Mrs . Loncto would like to have in the future Mr. Krogh in attendance with
certain Agenda items . Some Board Members felt that was unnecessary and costly.
• Effective immediately, The Town Board Liaison (Matthew Besemer) will provide the
• Planning Board Members with an update on issues that may be of importance to the Board.
In addition, the Planning Board Members may ask questions of Mr. Besemer.
tl
• • Two Empire Zones have been approved in the Town of Lansing. Maps are available to any
Planning Member that wishes to have one. The areas are the Airport and Lansing Business
and Technology Park.
• Nancy Loncto met with Richard Platt with regards to the 2007 Budget . There are no changes .
There are funds available for Equipment, Engineer expenses, Legal Services, Board Stipends ,
and Consultants of which the Planning Board has never totally expended any of these funds
in any given year. Any questions or concerns should be directed to Mrs . Loncto .
Richard Platt, C .E . O Questions
Mr. Platt inquired from the Board if they would require Liberty Precisions to go through Site Plan
review in order to expand has Machine Shop . The board indicated this Use is in the B2 District, and
our Ordinance indicates Special Conditions ( Site Plan Review Required).
In addition, AES Cayuga is planning an expansion of their facility. Mr. Platt questioned whether the
Town can require Site Plan Review on a Public Utility. Mr. Platt will check with Guy Krogh and the
Office of Codes at NYS .
David Herrick, P.E . Comments
David Herrick, P . E . commented that he thought the Planning Board would benefit from having a
technical Checklist that could be applied towards each project. Mr. Herrick has offered some from
T . G. Miller' s Library to see what best fits the Planning Board.
Mr. Herrick questioned whether the Planning Board wanted electronic copies of his comments sent
to the Engineer involved, the Owner/Applicant, or any other Consultants via his office or through the
Clerk in the Code Enforcement Office. It was agreed that Mr. Herrick ' s communications will be
• sent directly to the Town Code Enforcement Office.
Lin Davidson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8 : 43 PM . Viola Miller seconded.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS :
Lin Davidson — Aye
Thomas Ellis — Aye
David Hatfield — Aye
Brian Ivery — Aye
Nancy Loncto — Aye
Viola Miller — Aye
Larry Sharpsteen — Aye
MOTION CARRIED .
• .
• Town of Lansing Planning Board Meeting
August 14, 2006
Visitors Please Sign In Below : (Please Print)
Name Address
Cor7
woo, d 20 ,31, trj l r L,�f4 ,C :,, yofh � res 2
jj '6? a-,1-14 SilL 3S4 / 9f
<01\e - ce‘ kifivor 144 FNct r2c3 ‘ ( W ?
Q2€4i Leu03 (zincQ 0) nitk-ke-A4 44S Lf
.A/ gt :1 eAe/ ocyb
Polvvv:u LivVi8-oq Cosizzr, 14tga
Doukck &lies -
http ://www. lansingtown. com/
nik
TOWN of LANSING
III
® "Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty "
GN
� ZONING, PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
\t 1 Box 186
\ Lansing, NY 14882
�
11 E-mail: tolcodes@twcny. rr. com
Town of Lansing
Planning Board Meeting
August 14 , 2006 7 : 15 PM
Lansing Town Hall — Large Court Room
http://www.lansingtown .com/
Agenda
Time: Agenda Topics
7: 15 PM Public Comments/Concerns
7:20 PM Besemer/Drake Road Subdivision,
Tompkins County Health Dept. Comments
Cayuga Way Subdivision, Preliminary Plat
Grandview Drive/Tiger Lily Lane, Parcel # (s)
40.-3-28.2 & 28.1
William Duthie, Site Plan Review-Addition
To Cascadilla Space, 8 Town Barn Road, Tax
Parcel # 30.-1 -16.3
Update by Richard Platt, Re: Richard Lobdell,
Stormwater Plan Major Subdivision, Farrell
Road, Parcel #
Randy Swearingen - Informal Discussion,
Archery Club, Waterwagon Road
Discuss Complaint regarding Roadside Stand -
Brickyard and Ridge Road
• ApprovaUDenial of July 24, 2006 Minutes
e
• Contracting W/ Intern Student
Town Board Liaison Report/ Member Questions
Planning Board Attendance
Any other Business deemed necessary
Adjournment
•
•
4 J
Pei/ \3CSA rcrc t eszi caz
Allen T. Fulkerson , L. S .
g Ce David A. Herrick, P. E .
TT TTE nn�} � , 4 Lee Dresser, L.S.
} . 9<4G 1 L: _l tul, . �, Frank L. Santelli , P. E .
• Andrew J. Sciarabba , P. E.
Engineers and Surveyors Darrin A. Brock, L. S.
August 9 , 2006
Ms. Nancy Loncto, Chair
Town of Lansing Planning Board
Box 186
Lansing , NY 14882
Re : August 14th Meeting Agenda
Dear Ms . Loncto ,
We've reviewed the following two projects that are expected to be on the Planning Board Agenda for the
August 14th meeting and offer the following comments :
Cayuga Way Subdivision — Preliminary Plat
1 . Highway and Water System :
a . We have coordinated the connections to the Town's booster station constructed in Pheasant
Meadow and future connections to a higher pressure tank grid . We will provide the Engineer with
additional details of the actual connection locations for use in developing their construction
documents .
b . A copy of a sealed boundary and topographic survey must still be submitted .
c . The alterations within the Lakeview Subdivision may require additional Planning Board action on
® previous approvals granted that project.
2 . Stormwater Management: In general , many of the original review comments have not been
addressed .
a . Grading/ Site Layout
1 ) Two culverts are displayed differently on Plan ST- 1 than on Plan ST-5, as follows .
• The culvert that passes under " New Road B" has different inverts presented in
each plan . While the inverts on the erosion control plan ( 1116 . 5 and. 1106 . 5 ; ST-
5) appear to match the grading plan and road profile more closely, neither is
completely correct. The actual inverts are about 1114 . 5 and 1104 . 5 based on
site grading .
• For the culvert that crosses "Road A, " the written inverts are the same on each
plan , but the orientation of the culvert is different.
The downstream location is the same on both plans , and appears to be at
about elevation 1060 , but the reported invert is 1066 . 2 .
The upstream location is different on each plan ; the reported upstream invert
is 1068 .8 , which appears nearly correct based on the location of Plan ST- 1 .
The upstream invert on Plan ST-5 is approximately 1161 . 5 .
On the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ST-5) the swale that conveys
runoff from the northern edge of the site to the basin appears to run either
completely flat or at a slightly negative slope . This swale also flows through
the front yard of Lot 10 , within about ten feet of the edge of the house .
2) The swale on the west side of " Road A" does not convey flow to the roadside ditch along
this road , but appearsto flow directly into the edge of the road .
b . Details
111
1 ) The outlet structure for the retention basin appears on plans ST- 1 and ST-5 to include
some sort of junction at about elevation 1043 , followed by another pipe connection to a
203 North Aurora Street • Ithaca, New York 14850
Telephone (607) 272-6477 • Fax (607) 273-6322 • www.tgmillerpc.com
4
w .
level spreader. The detail on ST- 11 shows a control structure in the embankment, leading
• to a traditional stone apron outlet.
c . Hydrology/ Hydraulics
1 ) The pre-developed watershed areas are bound by the site , rather than the actual
watershed boundaries . In fact, much of the site does not drain to design point DP-2 , and
flows directly to the north .
2) A large volume of water is disappearing within the ponds (0 . 9 acre-feet for the 1 -year and
1 . 3 acre-feet for the 10- and 100-year) . It is not clear how this is happening , but the
volume of flow should be the same entering and leaving these practices .
d . Erosion and Sediment Control
1 ) This may just be a hatching issue, but the "dry riprap" called for on the ESC plan does not
appear.
2) The text calls for 75% stabilization , but the DEC requires 80% .
3) The construction sequence is not of sufficient detail . It is unclear when the road will be
constructed relative to individual lots .
4) Will the stormwater pond be used during construction as a sediment trap, and if so when
will sediment be removed ?
e . Permanent Stormwater Management
1 ) The pond does not conform to the geometry guidelines and requirements set forth in the
" New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual" as follows :
- Minimum Length to Width Ratio of 1 . 5 : 1 ( Required)
- Long Flow path (design guidance)
- Irregular Geometry ( Design Guidance)
- Pond Buffer ( Required )
• 2) The dry swale proposed does not meet state standards due to the shallow depth of
material above the underdrain . This practice only treats a few lots , and a traditional
grassed channel" may provide sufficient treatment. Regardless of which option is used , a
"60-day" DEC review period will be required .
3) A more detailed long-term maintenance is required for both the pond and dry swales .
f. General Format
1 ) Some referenced documents are currently out of date including :
• The 1997 "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control" and TOG 5 . 1 . 10 have
been replaced with a 2006 document available on DEC's web site .
• The " Reducing the Impacts . . . " document is also out of date .
Drake Road Subdivision — Sketch Plan
1 . Stormwater Management: Previous review comments that have not been addressed are highlighted .
sh' a . Grading
1 ) The site grading suggests the swale that captures runoff from lots 8 and 9 does not
S , ultimately reach the pond .
b . Hydrology/ Hydraulics
1 ) Plans reference Hydrocad Modeling Results , but none were provided . The Preliminary
Stormwater Management Report dated March 29 contains the only hydrologic modeling
results provided to date , and these results do not include the proposed on-site pond . The
plans do provide some information , but are missing the following :
• Peak discharges and flow volumes from each catchment.
• Stage-Storage curve for the proposed pond .
• • Hydrographs .
• Actual model input values to spot-check assumptions .
4 t
•
• Schematic to determine routing
•
2 ) An original comment from Ma 8 , 2006 su • gested the followin • :
' l P y tg; 0 . . Q tr Etta a 70 0 P °" E C >
`ae * ow S a aodr t . • er eri6fate • c'1 • •
* z z e z C''S 411`��n1 EF3.
E' ars ,• de mi nerf ' to y asibe„i
e .`e0 � .?./1
` z .1 „t„.% * • tti WIL • ^�'% • • 3 IA 4 t e ('e . , 9 0 w rtr 5 ; .. . �fr4 A.4 . ,
3 ) To date , no additional information regarding the design or hydrology of these ponds has
been provided . Any future submission should detail the following :
• Inflow rates , including all drainage to the quarry ponds .
• Stage-storage relationship.
• Elevations within the pond during storm events .
• Routing through the ponds ; if the ponds truly have no outlet, demonstrate that
inflows evaporate or infiltrate between storm events .
4) Runoff calculations are to " Design Point 1 " which is in the downstream quarry. Although
hydrologic assumptions are available for on-site catchments , no data has ever been
provided regarding the area intervening between the site and the pond , or the quarry
ponds themselves , which are represented as "Design Point 1 "
5) Although the swale that captures runoff from lots 8 and 9 does not convey runoff to the
pond , the catchment delineations on plan ST-7 suggest that this runoff does reach the
pond .
• c . Erosion and Sediment Control
„ a, . .r....4.00, , .offtie
• "" a
d . Permanent Stormwater Mana • ement
Int a * e , . ; t• f t. . . eer q
0 ° • '� w ; ffi ® . £it, to. ;SN '44 - 0 •mo o" o ..e .' .. 9.7.-
t . Uaf40 ary .9 0 9 . t s,
z
2) If the downstream quarry ponds will be used for stormwater quantity control , some
mechanism needs to be in place to ensure the long-term condition of the ponds even if the
property is sold .
e . SWPPP Format
1 ) The May 29 , 2006 SWPPP must be updated once the final practice designs are found
complete.
2) Some referenced documents are currentl out of date includin • :
t y ",` y. «' S"moi " sw • "ds ^+ o u44 •1„/ - S
° f urlHneso o, osror iar ,Sgp
.. � g d ' �,Y1Kn4' it : 4y it =i-- ; Ry Y :. "
• • oe u t ;het 474,0 � nent attee E °s ', a • sit`
RI : • ; Elute 6G . umetlt t, p€ eu k. . .
t
•3 ) The reference to the. Cayuga Way Subdivision in the " Post-Construction Inspection and
Maintenance" section should be removed .
Feel free to contact me with any questions . Thank you .
Sincerely,
David A. Herrick , P . E .
Cc: S . Farkas
D . Platt
J . French
G . Krogh
i
r
•
i •
rb„ ( ' % \, ... ��' Allen T. Fulkerson , L. S.
_ David . Herrick, P. E .
• _ _m�_,—/�_ _ ._ � _ ____ ___ _ , A!�' � � a � � ' •ALee Dresser, L. S.
Frank L. Santelli , P. E .
ndrew J . Sciarabba, P. E .
• Engineers and Surveyors Darrin A. Brock, L. S.
August 9 , 2006
Ms . Nancy Loncto , Chair
Town of Lansing Planning Board
Box 186
Lansing , NY 14882
Re: August 14th Meeting Agenda
Dear Ms . Loncto,
We've reviewed the following two projects that are expected to be on the Planning Board Agenda for the
August 14th meeting and offer the following comments :
Cayuga Way Subdivision — Preliminary Plat •
1 . Highway and Water System :
a . We have coordinated the connections to the Town's booster station constructed in Pheasant
Meadow and future connections to a higher pressure tank grid . We will provide the Engineer with
additional details of the actual connection locations for use in developing their construction
documents .
b . A copy of a sealed boundary and topographic survey must still be submitted . •
c . The alterations within the Lakeview Subdivision may require additional Planning Board action on
• previous approvals granted that project.
2 . Stormwate? Management: In general , many of the original review comments have not been
addressed .
a . Grading/ Site Layout
1 ) Two culverts are displayed differently on Plan ST- 1 than on Plan ST-5 , as follows .
• The culvert that passes under " New Road B" has different inverts presented in
each plan . While the inverts on the erosion control plan ( 1116 . 5 and 1106 . 5; ST-
5) appear to match the grading plan and road profile more closely, neither is
completely correct. The actual inverts are about 1114 . 5 and 1104 . 5 based on
site grading .
• For the culvert that crosses " Road A, " the written inverts are the same on each
plan , but the orientation of the culvert is different.
The downstream location is the same on both plans , and appears to be at
about elevation 1060 , but the reported invert is 1066 .2 .
The upstream location is different on each plan ; the reported upstream invert
is 1068 . 8 , which appears nearly correct based on the location of Plan ST- 1 .
The upstream invert on Plan ST-5 is approximately 1161 . 5 .
On the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ST-5) the swale that conveys
runoff from the northern edge of the site to the basin appears to run either
' completely flat or at a slightly negative slope. This swale also flows through
the front yard of Lot 10 , within about ten feet of the edge of the house .
2 ) The swale on the west side of " Road A" does not convey flow to the roadside ditch along
• this road , but appears to flow directly into the edge of the road .
b . Details .
110 1 ) The outlet structure for the retention basin appears on plans ST- 1 and ST-5 to include
some sort of junction at about elevation 1043 , followed by another pipe connection to a
203 North Aurora Street • Ithaca, New York 14850
Telephone (607) 272-6477 • Fax (607) 273-6322 • www.tgmillerpc.com
l '
• level spreader. The detail on ST- 11 shows a control structure in the embankment, leading
to a traditional stone apron outlet .
c . Hydrology/ Hydraulics
1 ) The pre-developed watershed areas are bound by the site , rather than the actual
watershed boundaries . In fact, much of the site does not drain to design point DP-2 , and
flows directly to the north .
2) A large volume of water is disappearing within the ponds (0 . 9 acre-feet for the 1 -year and
1 . 3 acre-feet for the 10- and 100-year) . It is not clear how this is happening , but the
volume of flow should be the same entering and leaving these practices .
d . Erosion and Sediment Control
1 ) This may just be a hatching issue, but the "dry riprap" called for on the ESC plan does not
appear.
2) The text calls for 75%. stabilization , but the DEC requires 80% .
3) The construction sequence is not of sufficient detail . It is unclear when the road will be
constructed relative to individual lots .
4) Will the stormwater pond be used during construction as a sediment trap, and if so when
will sediment be removed ?
e . Permanent Stormwater Management
1 ) The pond does not conform to the geometry guidelines and requirements set forth in the
" New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual" as follows :
- Minimum Length to Width Ratio of 1 . 5 : 1 ( Required )
- Long Flow path (design guidance)
- Irregular Geometry ( Design Guidance)
- Pond Buffer ( Required )
• 2) The dry swale proposed does not meet state standards due to the shallow depth of
material above the underdrain . This practice only treats a few lots , and a traditional
grassed channel" may provide sufficient treatment. Regardless of which option is used , a
"60-day" DEC review period will be required .
3) A more detailed long-term maintenance is required for both the pond and dry swales .
f. General Format
1 ) Some referenced documents are currently out of date including :
• The 1997 "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control" and TOG 5. 1 . 10 have
been replaced with a 2006 document available on DEC's web site.
• The " Reducing the Impacts . . . " document is also out of date.
Drake Road Subdivision — Sketch Plan
1 . We have refrained from providing any further project reviews pending any changes that could result
from the findings of the Tompkins County Health Department.
Feelfree to contact me with any questions . Thank you .
ely, f
ad I 4 •
David A. He rick . E T
Cc : - S . Farkas
D . Platt
• J . French
G . Krogh
•
a
0
rc a X x x 0 0 x X X ox
N
a
0
0
a o X x cox o o X x x x
a
a
0
a ry X X X 0 0 X X X X X
a
N
d
a
O
O
O a X X X X X X X X X O
tov
o W
Z a U
N
U
N
U co
0
o
9 N % Max X k % %
C °D
N
r
M
Q a
O
� N
< x x x o 0 o x o x X
N
CO
O� a
C_ o
0
C x X o o X X X x X X X
0
a
a
0
0
0 0 0 0 X OX O
N
N
M
CD
O
O
- N X X X a X X X X X X
M
NI
CO
O
co
r A x co O o X X X O
N
N
a
O
0
O M X X X X X X X X 0 X
a
0
0
u- -6.3 X o X X X co X X X X
N
a
O
O
W N X X X X X X X X X X
if)
m
F
N W
'C
CI A crsCI)
U j
d O L A N Z O U W .,
O E V ~ N m L O ' G 0 15
. C
U.
N F H c
A W R o 2_ :as_ .c N
M G W X ? J f O. N P b ry {R Q1 q
• N l7 YI n 0 g G N ° O N 0 n 0 P R NN N N N N N N
a <
x o